> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.bodiesburied.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# 18 U.S.C. 1512, Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025
- URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-1512-case-outcomes/
- Published: 2026-11-03T06:55:25.000Z
- Updated: 2026-11-03T06:55:25.000Z
- Description: Of 1,078 federal defendants whose most serious charge was under 18 U.S.C. 1512 when their cases ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025, 224 went to trial (21%). Those trials ended in an acquittal 27 times (12%). Overall, 885 defendants (82%) were convicted, and the median prison term on this charge was
- Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart
- Tags: Understanding Trends, Federal

[Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [Federal Prosecution Analysis](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) › 18 U.S.C. 1512

**In brief:** Of 1,078 federal defendants whose most serious charge was under 18 U.S.C. 1512 when their cases ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025, 224 went to trial (21%). Those trials ended in an acquittal 27 times (12%). Overall, 885 defendants (82%) were convicted, and the median prison term on this charge was 41 months.

Updated November 3, 2026 · Sources: U.S. Sentencing Commission and Federal Judicial Center, fiscal years 2016–2025

This post uses the Federal Judicial Center's records of 1,078 federal defendants whose cases ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025\. The series also draws on the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 659,036 people sentenced in fiscal years 2016 to 2025\. It is part of the [Federal Prosecution Analysis](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) series, which builds on [Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/military-sentencing-guidelines-federal-system/). How the numbers were built: [How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-data-methodology/).

## A Section With Many Trials

Trials were held often under this section. Of the 1,078 defendants, 688 pleaded guilty (64%), 166 had their charges dismissed (15%), and 224 went to trial (21%).

Juries decided 192 of the trials and acquitted in 23 (12%). Judges without a jury decided 32 and acquitted in 4 (13%). Across all 224 trials, 27 ended in an acquittal (12%).

An acquittal rate here is measured against trials only. Defendants who pleaded guilty or whose charges were dismissed are not part of that rate.

## What Was Counted

Title 18, section 1512 of the U.S. Code carries the heading "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant." The counts come from the Federal Judicial Center and follow the method of the federal courts' Table D-4.

Each defendant is placed under the most serious charge listed when the case ended, any subsection included. The data covers every case that ended, so dismissals and acquittals appear along with convictions.

In these records, a dismissal can include a charge the government dropped on its own motion. One example is a defendant who pleaded guilty in a different case.

## Felony Level and Prison Terms

Almost every charge was a felony: 1,074 defendants (more than 99%). Only 4 were Class A misdemeanors (less than 1%), and there were 0 petty offenses.

Of the 885 people convicted by plea or at trial, 780 (88%) received a prison term on this charge. Among terms of 1 month or more, the median was 41 months (3.4 years). Life terms were recorded for 30 defendants.

The median is the middle value when terms are ranked. It says nothing about how widely the other terms were spread.

## Type of Counsel at the End of the Case

CJA panel attorneys, who are private lawyers appointed by the court, represented 507 defendants (47%). Private (retained) counsel represented 358 (33%). Federal public or community defenders represented 196 (18%), and 3 people represented themselves.

Guilty pleas were 69% in the CJA panel group, 64% with federal defenders, and 59% with retained counsel. Dismissals were 19% with retained counsel, 17% with federal defenders, and 10% with CJA panel attorneys.

At trial, the retained counsel group had 78 trials and 11 acquittals (14%). The CJA panel group had 109 trials and 13 acquittals (12%). The federal defender group had 36 trials and 3 acquittals (8%).

These figures describe groups of cases, not the quality of lawyers. Counsel type is recorded at the end of the case, and people who hire a lawyer and people who receive an appointed one face different charges and circumstances.

| Type of counsel at the end of the case | Defendants | Pleaded guilty | Dismissed | Trials | Acquitted at trial |
| -------------------------------------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | ------ | ------------------ |
| Federal public or community defender   | 196        | 64%            | 17%       | 36     | 3 (8%)             |
| CJA panel attorney                     | 507        | 69%            | 10%       | 109    | 13 (12%)           |
| Private (retained) counsel             | 358        | 59%            | 19%       | 78     | 11 (14%)           |
| Self-represented                       | 3          | 1 of 3         | 1 of 3    | 1      | 0 (0 of 1)         |

## Fiscal Year Counts

The number of cases ending each year ranged from 61 in fiscal year 2020 to 175 in fiscal year 2023\. That year also had the most trials, 66, with 4 acquittals (6%).

Fiscal year 2025 had a dismissal share of 40%, the highest in the period, and a guilty plea share of 46%. Fiscal year 2017 had 22 trials and 6 acquittals (27%).

Year-to-year shifts in these counts do not show why they happened. The records do not give reasons.

| Fiscal year | Cases ended | Pleaded guilty | Dismissed | Trials | Acquitted at trial |
| ----------- | ----------- | -------------- | --------- | ------ | ------------------ |
| 2016        | 70          | 79%            | 10%       | 8      | 2 (2 of 8)         |
| 2017        | 102         | 74%            | 5%        | 22     | 6 (27%)            |
| 2018        | 97          | 74%            | 10%       | 15     | 3 (20%)            |
| 2019        | 99          | 72%            | 17%       | 11     | 0 (0%)             |
| 2020        | 61          | 74%            | 15%       | 7      | 0 (0 of 7)         |
| 2021        | 70          | 54%            | 23%       | 16     | 1 (6%)             |
| 2022        | 128         | 71%            | 9%        | 26     | 5 (19%)            |
| 2023        | 175         | 47%            | 15%       | 66     | 4 (6%)             |
| 2024        | 135         | 70%            | 5%        | 34     | 3 (9%)             |
| 2025        | 141         | 46%            | 40%       | 19     | 3 (16%)            |

## Links to Court-Martial Data

The approved crosswalk pairs this section with obstruction of justice under Article 131b. The comparison posts set federal and military numbers side by side. This post covers federal cases only.

## Limits of These Records

The data shows how cases ended, not what happened in them. It has no evidence, no plea terms, and no reasons for a dismissal or a verdict. A defendant counted here may also have faced other charges that were not the most serious one.

### How We Counted

Every federal defendant whose case ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 and whose most serious charge at the end of the case (TTITLE1) was under 18 U.S.C. 1512, any subsection (1,078), Federal Judicial Center, counted as in the federal courts' Table D-4\. Type of counsel is TCOUNSEL; labels from the FJC criminal codebook. Section heading from the U.S. Code as published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel (release point 119-136).

Federal fiscal years run from October 1 to September 30\. No person, judge, or lawyer is identified in any of these records.

### What to Keep in Mind

**Who is in each set of numbers.** The federal sentencing numbers come from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. They count only people who were convicted and sentenced in federal district court. People whose cases were dismissed or who were acquitted are not in them. The military numbers come from court-martial results, which include acquittals. To compare acquittal or dismissal rates, the federal side uses a different source: the Federal Judicial Center's case data, which counts every defendant whose case ended.

**How "plea" and "trial" are counted.** In the federal sentencing numbers, "trial" means the person was convicted after a trial, including people who pleaded guilty to some counts and went to trial on others. People acquitted at trial are not in these numbers at all (see "Who is in each set of numbers"). In the federal case data, the trial rate counts both convictions and acquittals at trial among all defendants whose cases ended, including dismissed cases. Military numbers count contested cases that reached a verdict. These denominators are not the same, and each post states the one it uses.

**Time periods.** Federal numbers are by federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30), based on the sentencing date. The military numbers are by trial date. Neither source has the date of the offense, so a change in law shows up in either data set gradually.

**Type of counsel describes groups of cases, not lawyers.** The Federal Judicial Center records the type of counsel at the end of the case. Defendants who hire a lawyer differ from defendants who receive an appointed lawyer in their charges, criminal history, and circumstances, and some defendants change lawyers during a case. Differences in outcomes by type of counsel therefore cannot be credited to the type of lawyer.

## Related Analysis

- [Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/military-sentencing-guidelines-federal-system/) (the background article)
- [Federal Prosecution Analysis](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) (all federal posts)
- [How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-data-methodology/) (sources and method)
- [Obstruction of Justice and Perjury: Federal vs. Court-Martial Sentences](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-obstruction-perjury-vs-courts-martial/) (comparison with courts-martial)
- [18 U.S.C. 1470, Transfer of obscene material to minors: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-1470-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [18 U.S.C. 1503, Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-1503-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [18 U.S.C. 1513, Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-1513-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [18 U.S.C. 1519, Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-1519-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [Appointed vs. Retained Lawyers in Federal Criminal Cases: How Cases Ended, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-appointed-vs-retained-counsel-outcomes/)
- [Are Courts-Martial More Likely to End in Acquittal Than Federal Trials?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-trial-acquittal-rates-vs-courts-martial/)
- [How Has Article 131b Changed in Army Courts-Martial Since 2021?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-131b-trend-2021-2025/) (court-martial data)
- [How Often Are Contested Army Article 131b Cases Acquitted?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-131b-acq-2021-2025/) (court-martial data)
- [Air Force Article 131b Cases by the Numbers, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-131b-trend-2016-2025/) (court-martial data)
- [Is Navy-Marine Corps Obstruction Prosecution Rising or Falling? Article 131b, 2017–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/navy-marine-corps-article-131b-trend-2017-2025/) (court-martial data)
- [Not Guilty Pleas in Navy-Marine Corps Article 131b Cases: What Happened at Trial](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/navy-marine-corps-article-131b-acq-2017-2025/) (court-martial data)
- [Article 131b (Obstruction, Numbered Since 2019): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-131b-courts-martial/) (court-martial data)
- [Article 131b UCMJ: Obstructing Justice](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-131b/?ref=bodiesburied.com) (law firm reference page)
- [U.S. Sentencing Commission, Individual Offender Datafiles](https://www.ussc.gov/research/datafiles/commission-datafiles?ref=bodiesburied.com) (source)
- [Federal Judicial Center, Integrated Database (criminal defendants)](https://www.fjc.gov/research/idb?ref=bodiesburied.com) (source)

**About the author.** Jocelyn C. Stewart is a retired Army JAG with more than 24 years of trying courts-martial and more than 200 jury trials. She hosts *Where All The Bodies Are Buried* and runs the [Law Office of Jocelyn C. Stewart](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/?ref=bodiesburied.com). This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.